4 ms·

Here's an interesting comparison: Google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=Fantasia&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq= http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa

by markkat 16y ago

Here's an interesting comparison: Google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=Fantasia&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq= http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=Fan... Bing: http://www.bing.com/search?q=Fantasia&go=&form=QBRE&qs=n&sk=&sc=8-8 http://www.bing.com/search?q=Fantasia&go=&form=QBRE&... Yahoo: http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Agt64BoFz7.2ArgJZ_Io2BSbvZx4?p=fantasia&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701 http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Agt64BoFz7.2ArgJZ_Io2BSb... What stood out to me is that images and videos are not being served up front and center on Google. No doubt more and more people are searching for video. Google really looks old-fashioned in this match-up.

xyzzyb 16y ago
My preference: DuckDuckGo: http://duckduckgo.com/?q=fantasia http://duckduckgo.com/?q=fantasia I prefer uncluttered and informative results at the top instead of news headlines.
- Legion 16y ago
  I do too, but I find for non-trivial searches, I often have to make use of !g. More than once I've spent time doing multiple searches for the answer of a tech question, re-wording the search to try and find a hit, only to have an a-ha moment and say, "oh! hey! '(original query) !g'" and bam, first page, The Answer.
Cyndre 16y ago
Its amazing how close they all are. One of the key things thats different is the bar at the top - but all same layout, format, color......
mcn 16y ago
My strongly preferred solution to this problem is to search for the desired media by using a keyword, like "!images cat". I'm not aware of a way to do this from within google, which creates an odd situation: setting my default search to duckduckgo increases google's usability.
eagleal 16y ago
But people are forgetting the hover text that Bing returns (see 1st result).For the search "circumference of the earth" http://oi55.tinypic.com/2jfx8ur.jpg http://oi55.tinypic.com/2jfx8ur.jpg Compare that with Google's results https://img.skitch.com/20110211-r3jmccgi1ejs24p1hbdnu69fwm.jpg https://img.skitch.com/20110211-r3jmccgi1ejs24p1hbdnu69fwm.j... (courtesy of xentronium). For this query Bing's results are far better that Google's (they actually specify circumference at equator and poles, alerting you that it's not the same; Google doesn't). Also if you add (in meters|in miles) to the query, you get similar results to Google's.

by markkat 16y ago

xyzzyb 16y ago

My preference: DuckDuckGo: http://duckduckgo.com/?q=fantasia http://duckduckgo.com/?q=fantasia I prefer uncluttered and informative results at the top instead of news headlines.

Legion 16y ago
I do too, but I find for non-trivial searches, I often have to make use of !g. More than once I've spent time doing multiple searches for the answer of a tech question, re-wording the search to try and find a hit, only to have an a-ha moment and say, "oh! hey! '(original query) !g'" and bam, first page, The Answer.

Cyndre 16y ago

Its amazing how close they all are. One of the key things thats different is the bar at the top - but all same layout, format, color......

mcn 16y ago

My strongly preferred solution to this problem is to search for the desired media by using a keyword, like "!images cat". I'm not aware of a way to do this from within google, which creates an odd situation: setting my default search to duckduckgo increases google's usability.

eagleal 16y ago

But people are forgetting the hover text that Bing returns (see 1st result).For the search "circumference of the earth" http://oi55.tinypic.com/2jfx8ur.jpg http://oi55.tinypic.com/2jfx8ur.jpg Compare that with Google's results https://img.skitch.com/20110211-r3jmccgi1ejs24p1hbdnu69fwm.jpg https://img.skitch.com/20110211-r3jmccgi1ejs24p1hbdnu69fwm.j... (courtesy of xentronium). For this query Bing's results are far better that Google's (they actually specify circumference at equator and poles, alerting you that it's not the same; Google doesn't). Also if you add (in meters|in miles) to the query, you get similar results to Google's.